BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

390 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)(vii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,189Delhi2,041Bangalore728Chennai576Kolkata390Ahmedabad302Jaipur221Pune169Chandigarh164Hyderabad157Indore121Cochin117Nagpur108Rajkot81Surat75Raipur74Karnataka69Amritsar56Lucknow50Visakhapatnam47Cuttack44Calcutta43Guwahati37Panaji36Ranchi33SC25Allahabad23Patna20Jodhpur20Telangana18Kerala14Dehradun13Agra7Varanasi7Punjab & Haryana4Himachal Pradesh3Rajasthan2Orissa2Jabalpur2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)86Disallowance57Addition to Income48Section 26346Deduction43Section 80I42Section 14A37Section 36(1)(vii)35Section 25031Section 36(1)(viia)

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 1802/KOL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

vii) was allowed by his predecessor only of that amount exceeding the reserve created under section 36(1)(viia) of the income tax act. The AO observed that for the assessment year under consideration the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) were applicable. Therefore the AO following the order of his predecessor for the AY 2003-04 has disallowed

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 390 · Page 1 of 20

...
22
Section 14818
TDS11

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 1803/KOL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

vii) was allowed by his predecessor only of that amount exceeding the reserve created under section 36(1)(viia) of the income tax act. The AO observed that for the assessment year under consideration the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) were applicable. Therefore the AO following the order of his predecessor for the AY 2003-04 has disallowed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

ITA 1615/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

disallowance of export commission payments. It strongly emphasis that impugned foreign export payments were in the nature fee for managerial / professional or technical services u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act requiring TDS deduction. We find no merit in Revenue’s impugned grievance. This assessee is admittedly a company manufacturing and selling electrical conductors, insulated electrical wire and cables, high

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

ITA 1616/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

disallowance of export commission payments. It strongly emphasis that impugned foreign export payments were in the nature fee for managerial / professional or technical services u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act requiring TDS deduction. We find no merit in Revenue’s impugned grievance. This assessee is admittedly a company manufacturing and selling electrical conductors, insulated electrical wire and cables, high

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1354/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income ITA No.1354/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 DCIT

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 133(6)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income from the business carried on by a non-resident assessee

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 2175/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115JSection 14A

section 36(1)(vii). Since there is no other decision of any High Court taking a different view on this issue has been brought to our notice, we respectfully follow the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirming the disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPPL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2074/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Dr. M. L. Meena, Hon’Ble]

Section 115JSection 143(3)

section (2) as increased by (a) (b) (c ) the amount or amounts set aside to provision made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities or. (i) The amount r amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of assets.” 5. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the addition

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SUBHATOSH MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2006/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Section 194JSection 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowance by CIT(A) is confirmed. This common issue of all the three appeals of revenue is dismissed.” 14. From the foregoing findings of the Tribunal, it is quite evident that the Tribunal had upheld the assessee’s claim for non-deduction of tax at source having regard to the pre- amended provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) read with

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

ITA 1376/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 254

disallowance on account of assessee’s claim of bad debts written off was not in accordance with the relevant provisions. He contended that the total claim made by the assessee for bad debts written off was more than the opening balance and to that extent deduction was claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(vii

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2015[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Amit Agarwal, AR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)Section 9(2)Section 91

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income from the business carried on by a non-resident assessee

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1144/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Amit Agarwal, AR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)Section 9(2)Section 91

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income from the business carried on by a non-resident assessee

ITO, WD-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PROGRESSIVE STOCK MANAGEMENT CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1487/KOL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2003-04 (Appellant ) (Respondent) I.T.O., Ward-1(2) -Versus- M/S. Progressive Stock Management Kolkata Co.Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata (Pan:Aabcp 5590 J) For The Appellant : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Jcit For The Respondent : Shri P.K.Himmatsinghka, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Revenue Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cita In Appeal No. 136/Cit(A)-I/Wd-1(2)/05-06 Dated 19.05.2006 Passed Against The Order Of Assessment For The Asst Year 2003-04 Framed By The Learned Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCITFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Himmatsinghka, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act. On first appeal, the disallowance was deleted by the Learned

BINAYAK IMAGINE & DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 519/KOL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)

vii) Vascular Angiography system including Digital subtraction Angiography viii) Ventilator used with annaesthesia apparatus ix) Magnetic Resonance Imaging System x) Surgical Laser xi) Ventilators other than those used with anesthesia xii) Gamma Knife xiii) Bone marrow transplant equipment including silasticlogn standing intravenous catheters for chemotherapy 4 I.T.A. No.519/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binayak Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. xiv) Fibreoptic endoscopes

WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2064/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 4A

section has been accepted by the Department consistently. Keeping in view, the above discussion, we find substance in the argument of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(vii

DCIT,CIRCLE-52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SUBHOTOSH MAJUMDER . S. JAMUMBDER &CO,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1629/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. Srivastava, CITFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

1)(vii)(b) of the Act and therefore assessee had obligation to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. According to AO, failure to do so had attracted provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the payments made to non-residents amounting to Rs.5,38,36,097/- was disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE - 52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBHOTOSH MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 2058/KOL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. Srivastava, CITFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

1)(vii)(b) of the Act and therefore assessee had obligation to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. According to AO, failure to do so had attracted provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the payments made to non-residents amounting to Rs.5,38,36,097/- was disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE - 52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBHOTOSH MAJUMDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 366/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. Srivastava, CITFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

1)(vii)(b) of the Act and therefore assessee had obligation to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. According to AO, failure to do so had attracted provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the payments made to non-residents amounting to Rs.5,38,36,097/- was disallowed

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

ITA 974/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9;\n(iii) “professional services” shall have the same mean-ing as in clause (a) of\nthe Explanation to section 194J;\n(iv) “work” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III* to section\n194C;\n[(v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation\nto section

VANTAGE ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 23/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 251Section 36(1)(vii)

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and therefore its claim should have been allowed by the AO. It has relied upon several decisions more particularly the Apex court's decision in the case of TRF Limited v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC) wherein it has been held that it is not necessary for the assessee to 3 I.T.A